People say America is a nation of immigrants. Okay, but which immigrants?
Today, globalists say All nations are ‘nations of immigrants’ since humanity originated from Africa and people moved out all over the globe. Also, there were series of invasions in every territory.
But even if we agree that all nations are ‘nations of immigrants’, why are they different? Because different peoples ‘immigrated’ there. So, white Europeans ‘immigrated’ to Britain and made it European. So, East Asian Mongoloid people ‘immigrated’ to Japan and made it East Asian.
So, even if we agree that both Britain and Japan are ‘nations of immigrants’, they are fundamentally different because different kinds of people ‘immigrated’ there and built different cultures and recollected different histories.
And this applies to the US as well. Okay, let’s use the broad term of ‘immigration’ to mean not only legal immigration but illegal kind, migration, invasion, imperialism, colonization, etc.
So, one can say US has been a ‘nation of immigrants’ from the beginning. And since Indians arrived from Asia and moved all around in endless tribal invasions, they too were ‘immigrants’ going from one part of America to another. And we can say South American natives ‘immigrated’ from North America.
Still, a ‘nation of immigrants’ means little. What is crucial is WHICH people immigrated, whether legally or illegally, peacefully or violently.
Consider an alternative American history. Let’s say Anglos founded and settled America in the early stages. But instead of allowing more immigration from UK and northern Europe, suppose the Founder Fathers caught the PC bug — don’t ask me how — and decided they are going to favor non-white immigration. So, from American Independence to the next 100 yrs, US takes in only Hindus, Chinese, Arabs, Africans(as free immigrants on tops of slaves), Mexicans, Filipinos, Egyptians, and etc. Anyone but white Europeans.
Now, this US would have been a ‘nation of immigrants’ too, but would it have become the US that we know, the one that came into being as an extension and outgrowth of European civilization? Absolutely not. Surely, WHICH people is crucial. Suppose there are three exact Vermonts. First one takes in 500,000 Germans, the second one takes in 500,000 Hindus, and the third one takes in 500,000 Haitians. In the most generic senses, all three took in 500,000 immigrants. So, will the result be the same? No, culturally, racially, intellectually, politically and economically, they will differ drastically. Even among only whites, preponderance of different ethnic groups led to different outcomes. Germans in Wisconsin behave differently from Scotch-Irish in the South. Indeed, it is amusing that East Coast Wasp types, Minnesotan Scandinavian types, and West Coast Jewish types all sneer at southern Scotch-Irish as ‘white trash’. If all Americans are the same and interchangeable, why such ethnic and cultural snobbery and contempt?
Now, consider the various American states. Officially and legally, all Americans of any race or culture or religion is ‘American’. So, every American state is equally ‘American’. But are all races, cultures, religions, histories, and etc equally valuable to the meaning of America?
A mind-experiment. Suppose all of America were to become like a particular state. Would the result be the same regardless of which state is chosen? Or are some states more quintessentially American than others? Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Iowa. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant New Mexico(where Mexicans outnumber Anglos). Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Hawaii. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Wisconsin. Suppose all of America were to become like a giant Vermont.
Now, each of those hypothetical nations could be said to be a ‘nation of immigrants’ since all Americans came from elsewhere. And each of them are legally just as American as any other.
But can any honest person say that an America that is like a giant New Mexico is as American as one that is like a giant Iowa? A giant New Mexico would be more Mexico than America. And a giant Hawaii-as-America would be more Filipino-Japan-China than European America that is quintessentially America.
And a giant Mississippi as American would be Euro-Africa.
The fact is America would still quintessentially be American without non-whites, but it is inconceivable without whites who extended European civilization, peoples, cultures, and ideas into the New World.
WHICH matters. Every New World nation, from Canada to Mexico to Panama to Venezuela to Bolivia to Chile, is a ‘nation of immigrants’. So, why are they so different? Because they took in different kinds of immigrants who interacted differently with the native populations.
Many non-whites and white Progs take umbrage at the notion that US has essentially been a white nation founded by Anglos and their systems and culture.
They say NO PEOPLE are more quintessential to America(or Canada, Australia, or New Zealand) than any other.
Okay, but how come most immigration-preferences are so Anglo-White-supremacist?
If indeed all peoples are equally capable with the availability of ideas and means, the whole world should be as successful as the US. After all, esp with the internet, the whole world has access to all the ideas, values, and sciences that make up the US and other such nations.
Why didn’t Jews push for an Ellis Island mythology in Latin American nations?
Why do Asians prefer Anglo-founded nations over Latin-founded ones or non-white ones?
Indeed, they prefer Anglo-founded white nations to fellow Asian ones.
Why do Africans prefer to move to Anglo-founded white nations than to fellow African nations or Arab nations? Even when Africans reach Europe, they move to northern areas despite cold climate because they find Northern Europeans to run things better.
All these peoples want to feed on Anglo-white-ness and want to live under Anglo-white-rule, but they bitch about how they are just as good and it’d be no loss if US became minority-white and become flooded with peoples like themselves. (If so, why flee from people like themselves in their own nations?)
If they’re just as good, why can’t they turn their nations into Anglo-white-like nations? Why do they dream of going to Anglo-white nations? Why can’t they realize any dream in their own nations?
And the Jews. Jews bitch on and on about how the US must be diverse and give up its whiteness. But the main reason why Jews were so eager to move to the US was because of its Anglo-white foundings and systems that they found superior to any other in the world. Would such system have come into being without Anglo-whites? Jews call for the demise of the very people who did most to build a nation that appealed so much to Jews. Would Jews have wanted to come to US if it was founded by Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, or Portuguese?
Now, some will say the Anglo-White system is an idea or proposition that can be adopted by any people. But how come the world sucks at doing this? Even in Asia that saw lots of growth and expansion, the majority of people say they wanna move to Anglo-white nations if given a chance.
So, it seems only white folks, esp Anglo-whites and Northern Europeans, can run really good societies.
“anti immigrunts anti muslims” media whore narrative drives a wedge between women votes.
Not looking good for WIlders so far, unfortunately. Damn. I thought he had a good shot…
Chin up everyone; Trump gave a helluva speech at the Hermitage!
He sees himself as the Modern Andrew Jackson!
Trump was not simply an opportunity to give America a chance, but to position us for the inevitable breakup.
A helluva speech indeed. It is very, very heartening to see that he feels that sort of connection to Old Hickory.
Thank god he didn’t move FDR’s portrait into the Oval Office.
Hopefully that Harriet Tubman madness is DEAD in the water
We can place a “civil rights icon” on the $3 bill.
Geert lost and he had no chanche whatsoever from the beginning. Election victory in Europe means that you get more votes that other partys. But because other partys are all anti white , they form a coalition against you and your victory becomes nothing. So when you hear next times that European nationalists polling high, remember that anything below 50% is here as good as zero. Antiwhite Rutte von by 26% something. When Geert had made the same result, then all others still had 74% majority and Geert victory means nothing.
But now good news. Geert gained approx 20 seats and it means that there are 20 full time paid nationalists. Our biggest problem is time and money We must work for living and we have very few full time nazis. More good news, In Netherland there are lot of partys and so called “moderates” lost a lot of places to extreme left. Even islamic party Denk got 3 seats. It may come out as Obama victory. Left will push things over the edge.On method to uncuck people is to let liberals srew them so hard that they will scream.
We don,t know how many such shipments passed but it,s sure that left and diversiy prepares for battle and that means that future of Europe will be not decided in the elections where pro white partys got their 20% for decades and nothing seems to change that.
What is the value of those 20 seats? Will the nationalists be able to have any real influence, or is this just a small moral victory?